Total amount: € 0,00
Online ISSN 1827-1596
Abdulmohsen A. AL-GHAMDI, Mohamed R. EL TAHAN, Alaa M. KHIDR
Department of Anaesthesiology, King Fahd Hospital of the University of Dammam, Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the use of the channelled King VisionTM and Airtraq® would shorten the time for tracheal intubation compared with the Macintosh or GlideScope® laryngoscopes in patients with normal airways.
METHODS: Eighty-six patients were randomly assigned to intubate the trachea using either the Macintosh (n=22), Glidescope® (n=21), Airtraq® (n=21), or King VisionTM (n=22) laryngoscope. The primary outcome was the time to tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included the laryngoscopic view, numbers of laryngoscopy attempts, first pass success rate, optimisation manoeuvres, ease of intubation, and postoperative sore throat.
RESULTS: Compared with the Macintosh and GlideScope®, the use of the channelled VL had significantly longer times to tracheal intubation (mean times: Airtraq® 44 s. 95% CI [39.6 to 46.7]; King VisionTM 34.5 s. [33.1 to 40.2]; Macintosh 20 s. [19.7 to 26.7]; GlideScope® 27.9 s. [25.1 to 30.7], P<0.002) and caused less mucosal trauma(P=0.006). The King VisionTM is slightly faster than the Airtraq® (P=0.035). Compared with the Macintosh and the Airtraq®, the GlideScope® was easier to use (P<0.001). The 4 groups had comparable glottis views, number of laryngoscopy and optimising manoeuvres and first attempt success rate. The Airtraq® and King VisionTM had a lower incidence of sore throat than with the Macintosh or GlideScope® (P=0.001). No patient had failed intubation.
CONCLUSION: The King VisionTM and Airtraq® require longer intubation times, as primary outcome, and cause less sore throat than the Macintosh and GlideScope® when used by anaesthesiologists with limited experience in patients with normal airways. Our conclusion is difficult to extrapolate to the expert anaesthesiologists who are using videolaryngoscopes on a regular basis.